NSW set for more Blues at hands of ruthless Maroons

I wasn’t assuming they were the only factors I just wasn’t able to assume what other factors you would want to review and giving a review of every single element of the game from the colour of the water bottles to trainer involvement would require an extremely long response. In terms of the correlation of a prior event and with a result this is kind of what you are asserting when you want to know if that players were on a team going forward. By asking for this your base case is that teams going forward produce better opportunities and hence better stats for certain positions. I’m suggesting to test that by looking at stats that result “going forward” and ones that don’t. If there is a meaningful correlation then you should cut the data to see how someone would perform given equal opportunity. I think yes I would put more weight on stats as I think many of the limitations people place on such an approach are more a result of not knowing how to approach the analysis themselves. I wouldn’t expect everyone to be warmly accepting of a metrics approach to evaluating players but I would expect professional organisations to use it in conjunction with subjective review especially in an environment like league.

In dealing with the 3 examples in my original post, you're assuming that they're the only 3 I think could be considered. They were merely the first 3 that came off the top of my head. I think there would be plenty of others. However, I'm not sure that we actually disagree that much since you agree that the stats shouldn't be taken in isolation, which is essentially what my original comment was trying to get out. Mind you, I suspect you may put more weight on them that I would, and that you may (to my mind) downplay the extent that judgment comes into assessing things like how much of a correlation there is between an event and something that occurs after it. However, opinions differ. Maybe mine come out of a perspective not wanting games to become completely a scientific exercise.

Lets look at the three differentiators you want to judge the stats on. Going forward, scoreline and bell ringing tackle. Do stats tell you if someone is in a team that’s always going forward – yes and very clearly ans imply. If you want to see how they perform in the different scenarios you can filter the stats that exist without subjective box ticking. Three levels of filter for illustrative purposes: - Matches where your forward pack gained above the league average. Broken out by standard deviations even - Sets of six where they gained above the league average or - The previous tackle where they gained above the league average. Number racked up whilst kicking an opponent whilst they are down or when the game is on the line– simply filter by the margin on the score board at the time the stat was generated. The only subjective “box tick” is the definition which the selectors will determine, even this can be done by a look at other result to determine when a lead becomes difficult to overcome, very difficult to liken that level of subjectivity to an entirely qualitative approach. The bell ringing. This would be driven by what you are trying to achieve. Do you want bell ringers because they slow the play down? If that is the case you could time the play of the balls following a tackle and compare to the league average. If it is purely the ability to inflict pain then first you should be testing to see if this has any impact on the game by reviewing tape and, yes subjectively, categorising such tackles and then looking at how the correlate to the performance over the rest of the game, next set of six, that players next hit up etc. this would be the only one of the three elements that requires a “box tick” style of analysis. NRL stats apparently does bespoke stats packages for teams so they should be able to get you the requisite data to analyse. Should it be used in isolation, no, but most MLB, NBA and the NFL teams will employ a statistics department as part of their player evaluation. There is an annual conference on statistical modelling in sports at MIT and in just about every industry that involves allocation of limited resources (in this case the 17 roster spots) both qualitative and quantitative analysis is done.

Except that the ones actually taken, as described by Steve, don't, in any way. You might design a set of parameters attempting to factor in all the qualitative elements that go into judging a player's performance, but then you are re-introducing the subjective human judgment element - the only difference being that this time it is exercised by the people compiling the raw data in deciding which box to tick after a particular play, rather than the selectors. For making team selections stats are a guide, not an answer.

Ennis had a great game last night. Laid on the try that got us back in front, great dummy half play in the 2nd half in tandem with Gids. Farah had his chance and stuffed it up with two of the worst Origin games I've seen from a No. 9. The penalty was a bit silly - but it certainly didn't lose the match for the Blues - and the penalty should have gone to NSW anyway with Myles elbowing and then punching Ennis while they were on the ground. Soft goal line defence for the Myles and Slater tries (how there can be yawning gaps under the sticks when you're playing such a compressed defence is beyond me) was more to blame. I agree with Bird a 5/8. He was the difference for the Blues last night. When NSW were so timid at the start, Bird lead the way with his aggression and fearless play - the other Blues lifted around him. Beau Scott has to go - waste of a position and I don't think his defensive reads are even that good. Selectors and Bellamy said before game one that this was the best NSW side in 5 years and then they made 9 changes for game 2 - including key tactical and positional changes ie. Hayne to fullback, Gids captain off the bench, dropping Idris, Scott in the centres. To me this is the selectors putting their hands up and saying "we got it wrong." Then they make another 8 changes for game 3. QLD have the edge on us in talent, we don't need the selectors taking 3 games to get it right. I'd like to see them stick with the same team for game 1 next year but you can bet that there will be a couple of players in form that 'demand' selection, get in and disrupt team harmony and spirit - it's the Blues way. It's hard to die for the person next to you when you only met him a week ago and have never played with him before. Finally, stats are no way to pick a team. There are plenty of players who rack up good numbers every week but have little or no quality about what they do. Stats are for fantasy footy not Origin...

Actually stats are easily able to differentiate between all the situations you describe.

Vinay the spirit is different. A New South Welshman grows up wanting to play for Australia or win a premiership for his club team. A Queenslander grows up wnating to play for Queensland. I used to think it was a bit of exageration until I moved to NSW

Gotta be Farah next year - but thats the only change NSW should make, besides Bird at 5/8.

That's what happens when you rely on spoiling tactics and niggle. What a great game, I just thought that the Blues got a few 'handouts' from the ref mostly from good acting lol.

Just watched the last 30 minutes on TV in England. What a match! Fabulous skill levels by both sides, but why did Ennis get drawn into a fight to give away such a vital penalty?

As a Queenslander, I'd love to see NSW selecting solely on the basis of stats. Stats don't tell you if someone's in a team that's always going forward, or one that's always going backward. They don't differentiatie between big numbers racked up while kicking an opponent who's down, and those ground out against a strong opponent when the game's still alive. They don't register any difference between a bell-ringing tackle and a routine one. Interesting that the make-up of the Qld panel (Des Morris, Alan Smith, Gene Miles and Mal Meninga) is not that different from the NSW panel, save for the presence of the Qld coach. Personally, I find it hard to believe people who were as smart as players as Fulton and McCarthy would not have the ability to keep up with changes in the game, or would lose their ability to judge a good player.

I wonder what 9 will put on next year now that hey hey got axed? hmm maybe murder she wrote?

Be interesting to see what channel 7 will do when they have Origin ;)

Yup Jeff. I wish Melbourne were two hours behind Sydney lol, But then again I don't think they get Friday games at all, maybe wrong.

I have sent numerous mail to NRL and Nine neither side has had the decency to reply. Sorry, someone from NRL did reply once and although it was nicely worded, the message was "We don't really care". It just seems that "Skippy does Dallas" or other such crap, has more appeal than State of Origin. Yeah Friday night also irks me, most Fridays I don't get to bed before 3am -- would love to see at least one game end before midnight!!. A relative who works with Ch9 says that the Friday scheduling is all about attracting advertisers for late night viewing, whereas prime time advertising wil attract businesses whatever rubbish is shown and I know lotsa people who enjoy RUBBISH.. I dunno if this is factual but it's very poor from a fans perspective in particular the type of advertising at that time of night, Call girls and Brothels mostly (Exaggeration!!).

Steve, you make a valid point about Selectors. Fulton and McCarthy,great players,but sport moves on and in this cyber age there is no need to wait till game three. Decisions have to be made during the game and new strategies devised with the unfolding game. They have had only plan A when the game was crying out for B and C. The talent is here in NSW and too much is made of the Queensland Spirit. It is just better selections north of the Tweed. It is time we had some "young" selectors. I am not for a 12 month coach when all is needed is two months of intensive work. It takes more than a week to get a team to play for each other. Perhaps a midweek training session for 22 guys two months before the first origin. This means you are picking a squad two months ahead. It gives every one a chance to learn their roles.

Well said Steve, C'mon write an article about NRL and Channel Nine ignoring most of Australia.